what if the great schism of 1054 had never happened, or if it did happened was quickly reconciled within a few years.
What would this mean for the crusades, and the eventual fate of the eastern roman empire?
(My apologies if this is the incorrect sub in which to post this question; please point me towards a more appropriate one if such is the case and I will delete this post and place it there instead.)
What are the Orthodox Church’s justifications in the East-West schism? (Note: I am not looking to debate or anything like that; I only want to hear the reasoning as to why the Church thinks it is correct and/or the Catholic Church is incorrect.)
Can someone recommend me some good books on this topic?
In this short video, it explains a few reasons as to why the East-West Schism happened, one of which was the differences in what should be written on the Nicene Creed.
Alongside this was also other arguments that led to differences between the two faiths such as who was the actual centre of the Christian Church, whether it was Rome or Constantinople, the corronation of the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne as the title "Roman" and "Holy" probably offended the Roman status of the Byzantine Empire (who still identified as the Roman Empire) and as the centre of the Christian Church, and other minute differences such as whether eating leavened bread or unleavened bread.
Seeing this from a non-Christian perspective is really hard for me because these minute differences seem to be of little importance or impact of how the faith should have been practised. Yet these small differences between eventually built up to this wide spread divide that eventually viewed each other as a heretical personification of the Christian faith which also influenced the attitudes towards the other especially during the times of the Crusades and during the time when the Byzantine Empire was slowly losing its power and influence and its strength from its Christian allies.
I understand these cultural differences had a large political and military impact on impact on the two powers, especially to the Byzantine Empire because it felt that it had lost its influence as a centre of the Christian faith during the Medieval era especially considering religion had a major influnce of every aspect of politics and culture at the time.
But I still find it very hard to understand that such small differences between the two faiths eventually led to great divides and were even close to actual conflicts between the two (or even indirectly if you take into account the Fourth Crusade because if the Crusaders had a different attitude towards the Byzantine Empire at the time, they probably would not have been so keen to attack Constantinople because they were not given the pay that they were promised by Prince Alexios because they helped him to get back to the throne after his father was usurped).
I understand that these two powers both saw themselves as the centre of the Christian faith and religion had a large impact in every aspect of European culture at the time.
But why exactly were these minute arguments about how the
... keep reading on reddit ➡
The Crusades were meant to be a united religious attempt to reliberate important Christian kingdoms while also to limit the spread and power of their main opposing, the Caliphates and later the Ottomans.
And as time went by, the attempts to liberate these cities were less successful than desired and even led to other disasters like the Battle of Zara and the attack of Constantinople which were both Christian cities.
Given that this was a divide between powers that were both Christian and did not want to allow the Islam force to spread as the Byzantine Empire was slowly losing its influence and strength as time went on, where there any attempts of either the Roman Catholic church, or the Orthodox Church to unite the two Churches after the East-West Schism in an attempt to unify against a common threat?
I'm a Catholic who has some questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy specifically on some subjects. I'm not interested in the political causes of the schism, nor the theological ones at the time (1054 AD), but the current situation.
- Do you believe the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, i.e. that Mary was conceived without sin, to be heresy?
- Do you believe that the Filioque clause, i.e. that the Holy Spirit comes both from the Father and the Son, to be explicitly heretical?
- Does the Orthodox Church uphold the doctrines of Gregory Palamas as binding and as the primary current of theological thought? I'm specially interested in the essence-energies distinction. Could you give me some sources that successfully explain it?
- And just out of curiosity, do you believe that the Catholic Church still has valid sacraments and clergy?
BACKGROUND: I was reading some articles at New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia, when I came across this sentence: "There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism" (The Eastern Schism in fine). I really doubt this is true, even from your point of view.
I was reading some articles at New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia, when I came across this sentence: "There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism" (The Eastern Schism in fine). Now I'm a bit confused. How is it that the rejection of the Filioque isn't heresy? They also deny the Immaculate Conception and obviously the papal infallibility. And I've heard somewhere that they follow the theology of Gregory Palamas, which distinguishes between God's essence and "energies", and I've also heard it's heretical too, but I couldn't find a good criticism on that one.
The Arabic Diatessaron was written by Tatian of Assyria who was a member of the Syriac Church of the East which followed a Nestorean Christological perspective. The Diatessoran was transmitted orally by recitation as the only knowledge of Christianity in Arabia and the Middle East.
"John Bowman suggests that Muhammad gained his knowledge of the Old Testament via the Diatessaron"
https://books.google.com/books?id=DgJvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=diatessaron+oral&source=bl&ots=AFPEN8wmoi&sig=QSgHmaotiVNEXj_ctNj5KfMwfpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJs62R-f3PAhUnxVQKHX7FBj4Q6AEIKTAE#v=onepage&q=diatessaron%20oral&f=false
Why did the split occur? How do the beliefs of each side differ? What conflicts has it led to? Is there a side in the division that’s more powerful or dominating? Has the tension healed over time, or is it still high?
How does restoring the Pentarchy lead to this? What happens to Papal Supremacy and other theological differences between Catholic and Orthodox church?
Does anybody have any good book recommendations on the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches? Ideally ones that go into detail to explain the theological disputes and why they were such a big deal, along with resulting political and cultural shifts. Bear in mind that I'm somewhat of a layman when it comes to theological terminology.
In this short video, it explains a few reasons as to why the East-West Schism happened, one of which was the differences in what should be written on the Nicene Creed.
Alongside this was also other arguments that led to differences between the two faiths such as who was the actual centre of the Christian Church, whether it was Rome or Constantinople, the corronation of the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne as the title "Roman" and "Holy" probably offended the Roman status of the Byzantine Empire (who still identified as the Roman Empire) and as the centre of the Christian Church, and other minute differences such as whether eating leavened bread or unleavened bread.
Seeing this from a non-Christian perspective is really hard for me because these minute differences seem to be of little importance or impact of how the faith should have been practised. Yet these small differences between eventually built up to this wide spread divide that eventually viewed each other as a heretical personification of the Christian faith which also influenced the attitudes towards the other especially during the times of the Crusades and during the time when the Byzantine Empire was slowly losing its power and influence and its strength from its Christian allies.
I understand these cultural differences had a large political and military impact on impact on the two powers, especially to the Byzantine Empire because it felt that it had lost its influence as a centre of the Christian faith during the Medieval era especially considering religion had a major influnce of every aspect of politics and culture at the time.
But I still find it very hard to understand that such small differences between the two faiths eventually led to great divides and were even close to actual conflicts between the two (or even indirectly if you take into account the Fourth Crusade because if the Crusaders had a different attitude towards the Byzantine Empire at the time, they probably would not have been so keen to attack Constantinople because they were not given the pay that they were promised by Prince Alexios because they helped him to get back to the throne after his father was usurped).
I understand that these two powers both saw themselves as the centre of the Christian faith and religion had a large impact in every aspect of European culture at the time.
But why exactly were these minute arguments about how the
... keep reading on reddit ➡